[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Ekpe v. Commissioner of Police of The Metropolis [2000] UKEAT 1044_00_1311 (13 November 2000) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2000/1044_00_1311.html Cite as: [2000] UKEAT 1044_00_1311, [2000] UKEAT 1044__1311

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	MR T de la MARE (of Counsel) Appearing under ELAAS


 


JUDGE WILSON: This has been the preliminary hearing of the proposed appeal by the original applicant against the decision of the Employment Tribunal sitting at London (Central) that the applicant did not have a disability for the purposes of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. Other issues were to go forward in any case, but this preliminary hearing concerns the proposed appeal against that finding.

1. Today the proposed appellant and the Employment Appeal Tribunal have been assisted by Mr de la Mare advising the appellant under the provisions of the ELAAS scheme.
2. The Employment Tribunal were concerned with complaints by the appellant of disability discrimination and racial victimisation. She claimed that she had a medical condition which meant that she could not use a keyboard. She says that when she was made to use a keyboard and became unwell, she was moved to other duties which were unacceptable for different reasons.
3. The respondent claims that the events upon which the appellant was relying were outside the three month time limit, which remains to be tried, but so far as disability is concerned the respondent claimed that the appellant was not a disabled person within the meaning of the Act.
4. The Employment Tribunal gave detailed reasons why it found that the appellant was not disabled within the meaning of the statute and we have received from Mr de la Mare on behalf of the appellant outline submissions concerning those reasons which Mr de la Mare submits should properly be the subject of full argument.
5. Having heard what he has had to say in amplification of his skeleton argument, we agree with him that the matter should proceed to full argument on the grounds set out in paragraph (c) of his skeleton. Those grounds will be substituted for the grounds drafted on the Notice of Appeal and will stand instead of those grounds.
6. The case to be listed as Category C, hearing time estimate two hours.